Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality ... · This final report has evolved...

Canadian Environmental Quality GuidelinesCanadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999

Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil QualityRemediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites in Canada

Canadian Council of Ministers of the EnvironmentThe National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program

March 1996

Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................. 2Résumé................................................................................................... 2Foreword................................................................................................. 3Acknowledgments .................................................................................. 3Glossary.................................................................................................. 4

1.0 Overview of the National Contaminated Sites RemediationProgram ........................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background...................................................................................... 51.2 The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program’s

approach .......................................................................................... 51.3 National framework for assessment and remediation of

contaminated sites............................................................................ 61.3.1 Nomination of contaminated sites ......................................... 71.3.2 National classification system for contaminated sites............ 71.3.3 Generic environmental quality criteria................................... 91.3.4 Guidance on developing site-specific environmental quality objectives................................................................. 10

1.3.5 Selection of recommended approaches for modifying guidelines.............................................................................. 15

2.0 Recommended procedures for deriving site-specific soil qualityremediation objectives ................................................................... 15

2.1 Guiding principles ......................................................................... 152.2 Explanations .................................................................................. 16

Explanation 1: Initial site characterization................................... 16Explanation 2: Does contaminant concentration exceed assessment criteria in Figure 4? .......................... 17Explanation 3: Identify intended land use.................................... 17Explanation 4: Does contaminant concentration exceed relevant background levels in Figure 4? ........................... 18Explanation 5: Identify site-specific exposure pathways and receptors.............................................................. 18Explanation 6: Cleanup to background levels.............................. 18Explanation 7: Is risk assessment appropriate?............................ 19Explanation 8: Do CCME criteria or guidelines exist? ................ 19Explanation 9: Do contaminant concentrations exceed land use remediation guidelines?................................. 19

Explanation 10: Method 1 – Adopt generic guidelines directly as site-specific objectives .................................... 19

Explanation 11: Method 2 – Modify generic guidelines ................ 19Explanation 12: Method 3 – Develop site-specific objectives using risk assessment ........................................... 20Explanation 13:Derive site-specific objectives using the soil

protocol................................................................ 20Explanation 14: Consult other jurisdictional options..................... 20Explanation 15: Characterize site according to allowable modifying parameters ......................................... 20

Explanation 16: Modifications to equation parameters..................20Explanation 17: Groundwater protection .......................................20Explanation 18: Direct human exposure to soil..............................22Explanation 19: Direct soil contact by ecological receptors...........22Explanation 20: Management checks.............................................23Explanation 21: Human food—backyard garden ...........................23Explanation 22: Human consumption of produce, meat, or milk produced on site ..................................................25Explanation 23: Volatile organics in basements.............................25Explanation 24: Off-site movement of dust....................................25Explanation 25: Modification due to background concentrations..25Explanation 26: Adopt modified guideline as site-specific objective..............................................................26

Explanation 27: Establishment of the final soil quality remediation objective ..........................................26

3.0 Hypothetical examples ...................................................................26

References 27

Appendix: Checklist for the national classification system for contaminated sites...............................................................29

Tables

Table 1. Receptors of concern considered for the derivation of effects-based soil quality guidelines for the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program............................10

Figures

Figure 1. General approach for contaminated site assessment and remediation ......................................................................7Figure 2. National framework for contaminated site assessment and remediation ......................................................................7Figure 3. The national classification system for contaminate sites .........8Figure 4. Flowchart for setting site-specific soil quality remediation objectives for contaminated sites ..........................................12Figure 5. Procedure for modifications to equation parameters for

four land uses ........................................................................145a. Agricultural land use .......................................................145b. Residential/parkland land use..........................................145c. Commercial land use .......................................................145d. Industrial land use ...........................................................14

Figure 6. Procedure for management checks for four land uses............24Figure 7. Hypothetical example using Method 2: Modification of generic soil quality guideline within limits to establish recommended soil quality remediation objective...................27

Canadian Soil Quality Guidelinesfor the Protection of Environmentaland Human Health

SITE-SPECIFICGUIDANCE

SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDANCE Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for theProtection of Environmental and Human Health

ciatedm iniority

s withessment the usent and

at havedance

res foredureshesef theceduresns taken

Abstract

In response to a growing public concern over the potential environmental and human health-related effects assowith contaminated sites, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) initiated a five-year progra1989 entitled the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP) for remediation of high prcontaminated sites in Canada.

This report was prepared under this program to provide government environmental officers and site managerguidance on the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in Canada. A national framework for the assand remediation of contaminated sites has been developed to provide interested parties with general guidance onof the various common scientific tools that have been developed to support contaminated site assessmeremediation. More specific guidance on the use of each of these tools is provided in a series of technical reports thbeen prepared for the NCSRP or are in preparation. Together, these tools provide virtually all of the technical guirequired to efficiently and effectively assess and remediate contaminated sites in Canada.

The CCME Subcommittee for Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites recommends specific proceduderiving remediation objectives for soil using the guideline-based approach. These recommendations include procfor evaluating the applicability of the generic guidelines to individual contaminated sites and for modifying tguidelines to account for a typical or unique site characteristics. In addition, examples to illustrate the application orecommended procedures for deriving site-specific remediation objectives have been presented. However, the prodeveloped to support the derivation of remediation objectives are not intended to supersede management decisiounder the authority of the agency responsible for remediation of a contaminated site.

aine dusied en), pour

tales etational

ées sur lieuxrapportsnt toute

sé dessur leslicationion deséduress ainsiler les

Résumé

En réaction aux préoccupations croissantes du public quant aux effets écologiques et aux effets sur la santé humà l’exposition aux lieux contaminés, le Conseil canadien des ministres de l’environnement (CCME) a mis sur p1989 un programme de cinq ans intitulé Programme national d’assainissement des lieux contaminés (PNALCl’assainissement de lieux contaminés hautement prioritaires.

Ce rapport a été préparé dans le cadre de ce programme pour fournir des orientations aux autorités gouvernemenaux gestionnaires de site sur l’évaluation et l’assainissement des terrains contaminés au Canada. Un réseau nd’évaluation et d’assainissement de lieux contaminés a été développé pour conseiller les parties intéressl’utilisation d’outils scientifiques courants qui ont été élaborés pour appuyer l’évaluation et l’assainissement decontaminés. Des informations plus spécifiques à chacun de ces outils sont disponibles dans une série de techniques publiés, ou en voie de l’être, pour le compte du PNALC. L’ensemble de ces outils fournit pratiquemel’information requise pour évaluer et restaurer de façon efficace les lieux contaminés au Canada.

Le Sous-comité du CCME sur les critères de qualité environnementale pour les lieux contaminés a propoprocédures spécifiques pour établir des objectifs d’assainissement des sols à partir de l’approche fondée recommandations. Les propositions du Sous-comité incluent des procédures pour évaluer les possibilités d’appdes recommandations génériques à un site spécifique et pour modifier ces recommandations en fonctcaractéristiques atypiques ou uniques du site. De plus, des exemples servent à illustrer l’application des procrecommandées pour établir des objectifs d’assainissement propres à chaque lieu. Toutefois, les procéduredéveloppées pour appuyer l’élaboration d’objectifs d’assainissement n’ont pas pour but de remplacer et d’annudécisions de gestion prises par l’organisme responsable de l’assainissement d’un lieu donné.

2

Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for theProtection of Environmental and Human Health

SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDANCE

igned toated site

ent andnder theection 1e the set

e as greaterSection 2modified,le of the

ulativeein is stillcted to behers may

l

Foreword

This report is a guidance manual for developing site-specific remediation objectives for contaminated sites deshelp provincial, territorial, and federal government staff, and other site managers as they address contaminremediation.

A general introduction to the scientific tools developed to help environmental quality managers in the assessmremediation of contaminated sites in Canada is provided in Section 1. These tools were originally developed uauspices of the CCME for the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP). The framework in Sexplains how these scientific tools may be used at various stages in site remediation. One of the major tools will bof effects-based environmental quality guidelines, developed using A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental andHuman Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME 1996a). It is intended that these generic guidelines will be applicablthe basis for remediation objectives at many sites. Some sites, however, may have conditions that requireinvestigation before the generic guidelines are used as the basis for setting the remediation objective. Therefore, provides guiding principles and explanations on when the generic guidelines may be adopted, when they may be and when further investigation through risk assessment may be done. Section 3 provides a theoretical examprecommended procedure.

This guidance manual is based on a review of similar guidance in other world jurisdictions combined with the cumexperiences of environmental and human health managers in Canadian jurisdictions. The process described herevolving as are the science and management of contaminated sites. Therefore, this guidance manual is experevised in order to reflect new advances. Comments from readers are welcomed. In this way, the experience of otlead to improved environmental management.

CCME Subcommittee on EnvironmentaQuality Criteria for Contaminated Sites

n and

ee onnada),thierew

mitteerafts.

onald

Acknowledgments

The Subcommittee members gratefully acknowledge the work of Philippa Cureton and Sylvain Ouellet (EvaluatioInterpretation Branch, Environment Canada), who prepared the report.

This report is based on discussion, information, and guidance from members of the CCME SubcommittEnvironmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. The members include Dr. Connie Gaudet (Environment CaDr. Lee Hofmann (Previous Chair, Ontario Ministry of Environment), M. Michel Beaulieu and Mme Renée Gau(Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec), Dr. Glyn Fox (B.C. Ministry of Environment), Ms. Simone Godin (NBrunswick Department of Environment), and Dr. Ted Nason (Current Chair, Alberta Environment). The Subcommembers also thank Mr. Micheal MacFarlane (British Columbia Ministry of Environment) for comments on earlier d

This final report has evolved based in part on discussions on an earlier report by Donald D. MacDonald (MacDEnvironmental Sciences Ltd.) and André Sobolewski (Microbial Technologies).

3


esi

-r

tio

rfe

e

l

n

tno

ieim

o

etas

sheesre.

gtaes

riccede

te,ed

s

tfiedoea

le of

f

icicof

Gloss

Terminology with respect to contaminated site assessmmay vary between individual jurisdictions and agencieThese terms are even used differently by the CanadCouncil of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) in itsvarious programs. The definitions here were adapted froCCME (1991a) and apply in the context of this guidancmanual.

assessment criteria – approximate background concentrations or approximate analytical detection limits focontaminants in soil and water.

background concentration – representative ambientlevel for a contaminant in soil or water. Ambienconcentrations may reflect natural geologic variations relatively undeveloped areas or the influence generalized industrial or urban activity in a regionBackground concentrations should be determined froan area at the site under investigation, or at a neasite, sufficiently removed from the source ocontamination to be safely presumed to have beunaffected by contaminant release.

CCME Subcommittee on Environmental QualityCriteria for Contaminated Sites – afederal%provincial working group to advise on thedevelopment and application of scientific tools for thNational Contaminated Sites Remediation ProgramHerein referred to as the Subcommittee.

check mechanism – a subcomponent in the soil protocothat considers primarily cross-media transfers from soto other media, pathways, or receptors.

contaminant – any chemical substance whose concentrtion exceeds background concentrations or that does naturally occur in the environment.

criteria – generic numerical limits or narrative statemenintended as general guidance for the protectiomaintenance, and improvement of specific uses of sand water. Previous CCME publications about thNCSRP used the term criteria; however, this term wbe replaced by guidelines for consistency with othenvironmental media (water, sediments, etc.). Intercriteria refer to the CCME (1991a) set of values, whicwere adopted from other jurisdictions and are neffects-based.

4

ary

nt.

an

me

nf.mby

n

.

il

a-ot

s,il

ellr

ht

final soil quality remediation objective (SQRO) – anumerical value for a substance; a remediation targthat considers the recommended SQRO as well technical, economic, and socio-political conditions.

guidelines – the numerical limits or narrative statementthat are recommended to protect and maintain tspecified uses of water, sediment, or soil. The guidelinthat are developed in other CCME programs afunctionally equivalent to the criteria used in the NCSRP

interim criteria – the criteria that have either beenadopted directly from existing criteria currently beingused in other Canadian jurisdictions or derived usinincomplete toxicological and/or environmental fate dasets as found in CCME (1991a). Interim criteria arreviewed and modified as new information becomeavailable.

modified soil quality remediation objective – thenumerical value for a substance that uses the genecriteria as the basis for deriving a site-specifiobjective, is in the process of being cross-checkagainst the scientific considerations surrounding thhuman and environmental health conditions at the sibut has not yet been put forward as the recommendsoil quality remediation objective.

NCSRP – the CCME National Contaminated SiteRemediation Program.

objective – a numerical limit or narrative statement thahas been established to protect and maintain a speciuse of soil or water at a particular site by taking intaccount site-specific conditions. Unless otherwisspecified, objectives refer to the concentration of substance in bulk soil.

orphan site – a contaminated site for which the responsibparty cannot be identified or appears to be incapableinitiating or unwilling to initiate remedial measures.

parameter – an element in an equation, the value owhich may be modified at the site-specific level withinlimits. Parameters that may be modified include organcarbon levels in soil that affect attenuation of organcontaminants, and body weight or soil ingestion rate human receptors.



a

o

rns.ndd

ete

e

eut

rte,

as

polluter pays – the principle that the polluter is responsiblfor correcting or remediating whatever environmentdegradation his or her actions have caused.

proponent – the principal party responsible for the sitremediation.

recommended soil quality remediation objective – thenumerical value for a substance that reflects croschecking of the scientific considerations surroundinthe human and environmental health conditions at tsite. The recommended value, together with docmentation on how it was determined, is put forward the starting point in determining a cleanup target thconsiders environmental and human health as well technical, economic, and socio-political conditions.

remediation –the management of a contaminated site fprevention, minimization, or mitigation of damage thuman health or the environment. Remediation optiomay include, but are not limited to, direct physical actionsuch as treatment, removal, or destruction of contaminaor other on-site risk management solutions, such as cappor containment of contaminants.

5

eal

e

s-gheu-s

atas

or

nss,nts,ing

remediation guidelines – guidelines that are intended fogeneric use and do not address site-specific conditioThey are considered generally protective of human aenvironmental health for specified uses of soil anwater at contaminated sites.

site – a property or legal parcel of land, that may includadjacent legal properties when affected by off-simovement of contaminants.

soil protocol – A Protocol for the Derivation ofEnvironmental and Human Health Soil QualityGuidelines (CCME 1996a). Herein referred to as thsoil protocol.

SQGE and SQGHH – the soil quality guidelinesconsidering “environmental effects” and thosconsidering “human health” effects, respectively, as pforward under the soil protocol.

standard – a legally enforceable numerical limit onarrative statement, such as in a regulation, statucontract, or other legally binding document, that hbeen adopted from a criterion or an objective.

1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SITESREMEDIATION PROGRAM

a

a

,

rs

m

ithfic

set

1.1 Background

In 1989, the Canadian Council of Ministers of thEnvironment (CCME) announced the National Contamnated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP) to addrehuman health and environmental quality concerns contaminated sites in Canada. This federal–provinciterritorial program was intended to support the assessmand remediation of contaminated sites by providing common framework and scientific tools for the consistenscientifically defensible, and cost-effective assessment aremediation of contaminated sites. Specifically, it waintended to:

• review and establish legislative instruments to ensuthat the “polluter pays” principle is respected;

• establish a consistent scientific basis for the identific

tion, assessment, and remediation of sites; • support the remediation of “orphan” sites where th

polluter-pays principle cannot be enforced;

ei-ssat

• provide funding for technological advancements inremediation methods; and

• communicate with stakeholders who are interested in

or affected by, the remediation of contaminated sites.

l/entat,nds

re

-

e

1.2 The National Contaminated SitesRemediation Program s Approach

In April and November of 1990, the CCME heldmultistakeholder workshops to discuss key factodeveloping a national framework for dealing withcontaminated sites. Three key recommendations frothese workshops indicated the need for:

• a “tiered” approach to assessment and remediation wgeneric national criteria and guidance on site-speciobjectives;

• a consistent risk-based approach to evaluate and

priorities for remediation of contaminated sites; and


tt

:

e

c

n

ted

r

nte

nof

tificting

d

tionofmnres,

ions

heics are

• equal protection of human health and the environmen

Workshop participants also indicated that effectivimplementation of these major program objectives wourequire the development of a number of supportinscientific tools.

As a result of the workshops, the CCME established Subcommittee on the Classification of Contaminated Siand the Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criterfor Contaminated Sites. Together these subcommittehave initiated a broad range of scientific tools, including

1. Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria forContaminated Sites (CCME 1991a)

2. National Classification System for Contaminated Sit(CCME 1992)

3. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental andHuman Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME 1996a)

4. Guidance Manual for Developing Site-specific SoQuality Remediation Objectives for ContaminateSites in Canada (CCME 1996) [this document]

5. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment Contaminated Sites in Canada: Review anRecommendations (EC 1994a) and A Framework forEcological Risk Assessment: General Guidan(CCME 1996b)

6. A Review of Whole Organism Bioassays for Assessthe Quality of Soil, Freshwater Sediment anFreshwater in Canada (EC 1994b)

7. Evaluation and Distribution of Master VariablesAffecting Solubility of Contaminants in CanadiaSoils (Alder et al. 1994)

8. Human Health Risk Assessment for ContaminatSites (HC 1995)

In addition to these tools, other CCME and federgovernment documents may help the site manager in assessment and remediation of contaminated sitesCanada. These include:

1. National Guidelines for Decommissioning IndustriaSites (CCME 1991b)

2. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analyses, and DaManagement for Contaminated Sites. Vol. I: Main

6

t.

eldg

heesiaes

s

ild

atd

e

ing

Report; Vol. II: Analytical Method Summaries(CCME 1993a)

3. Subsurface Assessment Handbook for ContaminaSites (CCME 1994)

4. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CCREM 1987)

5. A Protocol for the Derivation of Water QualityGuidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME1991c)

6. Protocols for Deriving Water Quality Guidelines fothe Protection of Agricultural Water Uses (CCME1993b)

7. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian SedimeQuality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Lif(CCME 1995)

8. Protocol for the Derivation and Use of CanadiaTissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection Wildlife in Aquatic Ecosystems (Walker andMacDonald 1993)

Together, these tools provide the key supporting scieninformation that is available for assessing and remediacontaminated sites in Canada. The guidance on settingsite-specific objectives for contaminated sites providesa context for these tools and is intended to be usetogether with these tools in the contaminated siteassessment and remediation process.

d

ed

althe in

l

ta

1.3 National Framework for Assessmentand Remediation of Contaminated Sites

The basic framework for site assessment and remedia(originally developed under the NCSRP) consists progressing from the generic to the site-specific: froguidelines through objectives to jurisdictional applicatio(Figure 1). Jurisdictional applications may include, but anot limited to, environmental protection orders, directiveapprovals, or standards.

The national framework for assessment and remediatof contaminated sites is more detailed (Figure 2). Aindicated, this guidance manual focuses on tdevelopment of site-specific objectives from generenvironmental quality guidelines. As well, conditionwhere site-specific risk assessment may be appropriateoutlined.



f

1.3.1 Nomination of Contaminated Sites

The first step in the overall contaminated site assessmand remediation process is the nomination of sites consideration. In general, this tends to be a relatively informprocedure that is implemented by jurisdictional agencies. Fexample, federal or territorial agencies may have informatisuggesting that sites under their jurisdiction have becontaminated by historical land use activities.

Likewise, provincial agencies may nominate candidasites directly or may consider nominations from thirdparty interests. Typically, these sites would be identifiebased on information demonstrating that the site significantly contaminated (e.g., soil chemistry dataHowever, any newly identified site may also be nominateif it has a number of similarities to other knowncontaminated sites. Sites nominated under the NCSwere classified, using the National Classification System, assess the need for further action to mitigate risks to humhealth and the environment. The classification system hgeneral application beyond the NCSRP.

1.3.2 National Classification System forContaminated Sites

Site classification is an important component of thoverall contaminated site assessment and remediatprocess. In Canada, a national classification system

Jurisdictional a pplication

Generic guidelines

Objectives — site-specific guidelines

Figure 1. General approach for contaminated siteassessment and remediation.

7

entoralor

onen

te-dis).d

RPtoanas

eionfor

contaminated sites (CCME 1992) has been developed toprovide a simple, consistent, and reliable basis forclassifying sites in terms of the potential risks theyrepresent to the environment and human health. Thesystem provides a convenient basis for assessing the needfor remediation at individual sites, for establishing therelative priority for implementing remedial measuresamong the sites that have been classified, and in the caseof the NCSRP, for determining whether individual sitesqualify for NCSRP funding. This classification systemwas specifically developed for the classification of siteshaving contaminated soils and groundwater. Detailedguidance on the use of the National Classification Systemis provided elsewhere (CCME 1992); therefore only abrief overview of this system is provided here. Tocomplete the classification, information about the site isrequired (see the Appendix).

Recommended Site-specificSoil Quality Remediation Objective

Method 1 Method 2

ModifyGuidelines Within

Limits

Site-specific RiskAssessment

Method 3

Risk Management StrategiesSocioeconomic and Technical Considerations

Jurisdictional Application

Site-specificApproach

Guidance provided inthis report.

=

See CCME 1996b andHC 1996.

=

Contaminated Site Identification and Characterization

Environmental Quality Guidelines

Guideline-basedApproach

Adopt GuidelinesDirectly

Figure 2. National framework for contaminated site assessmentand remediation.


r

e

totag

setoedileatednt,betity

Eng,RPntgicvebe

of;).g a

n; thee

wedalEretion

eteorllyal

Classification of contaminated sites using the NationClassification System is a five-step process that requitechnical expertise and professional judgement (see Figure

Step 1Assemble the available information on the site undconsideration.

Step 2Critically evaluate information to determine if theminimum data requirements for site classification havbeen met. Information required includes:

• a description of the site (location, size, etc.);• the nature and extent of contamination (and/o

historical activities);• the local topography and geology;• the surface cover;• approximate depth to water table;• proximity to surface water and drinking water supplies• annual rainfall, and flood potential; and• land and water use information, both at the site and

nearby areas

Class NAction Not

LikelyRequired

CollectAdditional

Data on theSite

Proposed Contaminated Site for Assessment

Step 1Assemble Available Data

and Information on the Site

Step 2Determine if Minimum Data

Requirements Have Been Met

Step 3Provide Supplemental

Information if Necessary

Step 4Complete Classification

Worksheet and Evaluation Form

Class 1Insufficient

Data

Step 5Determine the Final Site Score

(FSS) and Classify Site

Class 1Action Required

Class 2Action Likely Required

Class3Action May Be

Required

FSS = 70 to 100 FSS = 50 to 69.9 FSS = 37 to 49

FSS <15 FSS <37

Figure 3. The national classification system forcontaminated sites (source: CCME 1992).

8

ales 3).

r

e

r

;

in

If all of the requisite data are available, it is possible proceed with the site classification. If not, additional damust be collected at the site to obtain the missininformation.

Step 3Though the classification system was designed to ugenerally available information, it may be necessary generate supplemental information on the contaminatsite, if the checklist in Step 2 cannot be completed. Whcommon environmental survey techniques are approprifor collecting much of the required data at contaminatesites, sampling programs to establish the nature, exteand severity of contamination at these sites must designed to generate data of sufficient quality and quanto support the site classification.

In response to the need for high quality data, the CCMhas prepared a guidance manual to support samplichemical analysis, and data management in the NCS(CCME 1993a). While this manual provides a consistebasis for conducting data collection programs (includinsampling and chemical analysis), medium-specifprotocols (i.e., for water, sediment, and soil) that habeen developed for broader applications should also considered in the design and implementation monitoring programs (e.g., CCME 1994; ASTM 1990Mudroch and MacKnight 1991; other provincial manualsImplementation of a focused, well-designed monitorinprogram will ensure that the resultant data will supportreliable site assessment.

Step 4Evaluate the nature, severity, and extent of contaminatiodetermine the probable exposure pathways; and assesssensitivity of the receptors at the site (by completing thsite evaluation forms; CCME 1992). The Facility/SiteDescription and the Site Classification Worksheet alloyou to organize and document the raw information needto identify and classify the site. The generic environmentquality criteria developed under the NCSRP (CCM1991a) and other CCME programs (CCREM 1987) aused in this process to assess the severity of contaminaand the hazards posed to receptors at the site.

Step 5Check the Detailed Evaluation Form to be sure all of threquired factors were considered during the siclassification. The rationale for selecting the score feach factor is fully documented on the worksheet. Tathe final site score on the evaluation form and use the finsite score to classify the site.



i

il

ii

a

tn

ee

i

ndterndnde

dmc, theorm use

sibleil.erorntd

tyforaysusenle,

ianr..

uatehof

rer-ch

ed,ede of theay to,nd

Possible Classifications Using the NationalClassification System

Depending on the final site score, contaminated sites arplaced into one of five categories, namely:

• Class 1: action required• Class 2: action likely required• Class 3: action may be required• Class N: remedial action not needed• Class I: insufficient data

Specific management actions that may be taken at thsites include further characterization, hazard assessmrisk assessment, and/or remediation. Classification contaminated sites in this manner provides an effectscreening tool for determining the relative priority thashould be placed on individual sites. In addition, thinformation collected and evaluated during the sclassification process may be used to focus detaiinvestigations at high priority sites, such as those thmight be associated with an environmental or humhealth risk assessment. Furthermore, this information mbe used to identify use-protection goals and priorcontaminants at the site, in the derivation of site-specremediation objectives, and in the development of the smanagement strategy.

1.3.3 Generic Environmental Quality Criteria

Assessment Criteria. In 1991, the CCME recommendedinterim environmental quality criteria for soil and water taddress the immediate need for management toolssupport the assessment and remediation of contaminsites (CCME 1991a). In general, criteria are used general guidance for the protection, maintenance, aimprovement of specific uses of soil and wateAssessment criteria are approximate background conctrations or approximate analytical detection limits focontaminants in soil or water. Generally, the assessmcriteria are applied in identifying and classifying sites, assess the general degree of contamination at a site, adetermine the need for further action. If concentrationsa substance in the soil or water at a site do not exceedassessment criteria, further action is not usually requirWhen concentrations exceed assessment values, invgative action should be considered to assess the extencontamination and the nature of any hazards at a site, to determine the scale and urgency of further action,required. These criteria are a general first approximatonly.

9

e

eseent,ofveteteedat

anaytyficite

o totedasndr.en-rentod toof thed.sti-t ofand ifon

Interim Remediation Criteria. The interim remediationcriteria are considered generally protective of human aenvironmental health for specified uses of soil and waat contaminated sites, based on experience aprofessional judgement, and on a review of guidelines acriteria from other Canadian jurisdictions. Together, thinterim environmental quality criteria for contaminatesites and the generic environmental quality criteria froother CCME programs (CCREM 1987; CCME 19911993b; 1995) provide a consistent basis for assessingdegree of contamination at specific sites and fdetermining the need for remedial action. The intericriteria are not effects-based and are recommended foruntil effects-based replacements become available.1

Environmental and Human Health Soil QualityGuidelines. The 1990 multistakeholder workshophighlighted the urgent need for a consistent and defensapproach to setting national remediation criteria for soSuch protocols were already developed or unddevelopment as part of existing CCME programs fwater (HWC 1989; CCME 1991c, 1993b), sedime(CCME 1995), and biological tissues (Walker anMacDonald 1993). The soil protocol (CCME 1996a)provides a consistent method for deriving soil qualiguidelines under defined exposure scenarios ecological and human receptors. The exposure pathwand receptors that were considered under the four land-categories are shown in Table 1. Until remediatioguidelines developed using the soil protocol are availabsite managers should use the interim CanadEnvironmental Quality Criteria (EQC) for soil and wateThe other CCME guidelines may be used as appropriate1

Effects-based Guidelines. Remediation criteria orguidelines can be used as generic benchmarks to evalthe need for further investigation or remediation witrespect to a specified land use. Canadian Council Ministers of the Environment remediation guidelines aavailable for agricultural, residential/parkland, commecial, and industrial land uses. The degree by whi

1Note that because the interim remediation criteria were not develop

using the soil protocol and its integral checks, they cannot be modifior deconstructed as shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6. If in the absenceffects-based criteria, interim remediation criteria are to be used asbasis for developing site-specific objectives, a number of factors mnonetheless be considered. The factors include, but are not limitedbackground levels of the substance in soil, social, economic, atechnological concerns.


t

ih

h

o

m

dicat

rse

el,or at

lstesdn

nric

eoffic

teial

iteste

odilsn

oils.

se-

aysitesl

ofrthesichen

Table 1. Receptors of concern considered for the derivationof effects-based soil quality guidelines for theNational Contaminated Sites Remediation Program(CCME 1996a).

Route ofexposure Agricultural

Residential/parkland Commercial Industrial

Soilcontact

• crops/plants• invertebrates• nutrient

cyclingprocesses

• livestock/wildlife

• plants• invertebrates• nutrient

cyclingprocesses

• wildlife


cyclingprocesses


cyclingprocesses

Soil andfoodingestion

• livestock/wildlife

Multimediaexposure(humanhealth)

• child • child • child • adult

contaminant levels at a site exceed these benchmareflects the scale and urgency of further action. Where inot feasible to remediate the site due to technologicalother constraints, the remediation guidelines can aprovide guidance on the need for land use restrictionsother forms of risk management to protect human heaand the environment.

The principal application of the remediation guidelinehowever, is to provide the common basis for thestablishment of site-specific remediation objectiveMoving from the generic guidelines to a site-specifremediation objective allows the proponent to ensure tthe assumptions used in the soil protocol apply to the sspecific conditions.

Depending on local circumstances, the guidelines mayadopted directly (Method 1) or modified within limits toreflect site-specific conditions (Method 2). In either casonce guidelines are applied at the site-specific level in tway, they become remediation objectives.

In Canada, generic environmental quality remediatiguidelines (or criteria, as they were usually termed previous CCME publications about the NCSRP) frovarious CCME programs are derived to protect the mosensitive life stages of the most sensitive receptors tinhabit soils, sediment, or water. For soil, the soil protocsets out conservative calculation procedures for tprotection of human health and the environme

1

rks is orlso orlth

s,es.cat

ite-

be

e,is

nin

sthatolhent

under agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, anindustrial land uses. For this reason, the generremediation guidelines tend to be conservative values thare protective of a wide range of receptors under a divearray of potential environmental conditions. Whenadopted as remediation objectives on a site-specific levthese generic guidelines provide an effective basis fprotecting and restoring designated land and water usescontaminated sites.

1.3.4 Guidance on Developing Site-specificEnvironmental Quality Objectives

This report describes the core set of scientific tooavailable to assess environmental quality staff as it relato the national framework for the assessment anremediation of contaminated sites from site classificatioto development of environmental quality remediatioobjectives (Figure 2). Chapter 2 outlines adopting geneguidelines (Method 1), the modification of genericguidelines within limits (Method 2), and conditions wheresite-specific risk assessment (Method 3) may brecommended. Finally, Chapter 3 gives an illustration the overall process and the use of the various scientitools using a theoretical example.

Many contaminated sites also contain discrete wasmaterial and products. It should be noted, that remedobjectives for soil and groundwater apply primarily tocontaminated environmental media that remain on safter the removal and management of the discrete wamaterial.

As the generic soil quality guidelines are intended tprovide a high level of protection for the designated lanuses, they are considered to be broadly applicable to soin this country. Therefore, these generic remediatioguidelines are likely to serve as the basis for setting squality remediation objectives at most contaminated siteAlthough the generic guidelines are appropriate for uunder a wide range of environmental conditions, siteadapted environmental quality remediation objectives mbe necessary under certain circumstances, such as at having atypical characteristics (e.g., high naturabackground levels of a contaminant), complex mixtures contaminants (that could act synergistically oantagonistically), or unusual exposure scenarios (e.g., presence of special populations or receptors). Two baapproaches have been proposed to support tdevelopment of site-specific remediation objectives iCanada. The first approach, known as the criteria-basedapproach, involves

0



toeral

and

d

n

f

inreg

exificreed

useayn aithe

tk toye

tohe

• Method 1: direct adoption of existing Canadian soremediation guidelines, or

• Method 2: limited modification of the soil remediation

guidelines to reflect site conditions.

The second approach, termed the risk-based approach,relies on

• Method 3: use of risk assessment procedures establish the remediation objectives at contaminatsites on a site-specific basis.

For some sites, the direct adoption of the geneguidelines may be appropriate. In other cases, it mayappropriate to modify the generic guidelines. Thguidance manual describes how check procedures&thesubcomponents within the soil protocol that considprimarily cross-media transfers of contaminants&mayeither be considered or disregarded under site-specconditions (Method 2). The parameters within certaequations that may be modified to reflect site-specifconditions are also listed. Site proponents should be awthat information in this report is guidance only and ththe authority to accept the changes to equation parameusing site-specific data remains with the appropriajurisdiction.

The site manager is referred to guidance manuals ecological risk assessment (CCME 1996b) and humhealth risk assessment (HC 1995) for more detail on application of risk assessment (Method 3).

The Criteria-based Approach. The criteria-basedapproach entails adoption or limited modification ogeneric guidelines in light of prescribed site-speciffactors affecting contaminant mobility and receptocharacterization. Previous CCME publications about tNCSRP used the terms soil criteria; however, the tecriteria will be replaced by guidelines for consistency wiother environmental media (water, sediments, etcNevertheless, this approach will still be referred to “criteria-based approach”.

Under the criteria-based approach, modification generic soil quality guidelines for individual contaminatesites in Canada necessitates the consideration of at lfour factors (Figure 4), including:

• natural background levels of priority substances;• possible movement of contaminants in soil t

groundwater, air, or dust;

1

il

toed

ric beis

er

ificinicareatterste

onanthe

ficr

hermth.).as

ofdeast

o

• relevance of the toxicological data that were used derive the generic guidelines to the site undconsideration (e.g., the human and ecologicreceptors); and

• land uses and receptors of concern under those luses.

Limited Modification. Figure 5 shows that limitedmodification of equation parameters may be allowed for

• groundwater protection;• human exposure to soil; and• direct soil contact by ecological receptors.

Removal of Management Checks. The check procedureswithin the soil protocol that may or may not be deemeappropriate at the site-specific level include:

• backyard gardens in residential/parkland land use;• dairy or grain production for human consumption i

agricultural land use;• volatile organic compounds in basements o

residential/parkland land use;• off-site movement of dust from industrial land use; and• background concentrations.

The CCME recognizes that the check procedures usedthe soil protocol are elementary. However they wedeemed an appropriate level of detail for developingeneric guidelines. More sophisticated and complmodels exist and may be appropriate at a site-speclevel; however, the CCME recommends that these mocomplex models be addressed under a risk-basapproach.

Other factors at contaminated sites that could alter the of the generic guidelines as remediation objectives malso be identified. These factors should be evaluated ocase-by-case basis within the appropriate jurisdiction, wprofessional judgement being exercised by thjurisdictional authority in deciding whether to permimodification of the generic guidelines. In contrast to risassessment, the criteria-based approach is designedrequire fewer resources while providing a scientificalldefensible basis for protection that is sufficiently flexiblto account for certain site-specific factors.

The Risk-based Approach. The risk-based approach is acomplex and time-consuming procedure that involves atleast the following steps:

• Evaluation of the hazard and risk from contaminants receptors on a site-specific basis and comparison of t

1


Perform InitialSite Characterization Expl 1

Does ContaminantConcentrationExceed AssessmentGuidelines? Expl 2

Identify IntendedLand Use (AGR, R/P, C, l) Expl 3

Does ContaminantConcentration ExceedRelevant Background Levels? Expl 4

Identify Site-specificExposure Pathwaysand Receptors Expl 5

Risk AssessmentAppropriate? Expl 7

Do CCMEGuidelines Exist? Expl 8

Do ContaminantConcentrationsExceed Land UseRemediation Guidelines? Expl 9

Method 1Adopt GenericGuidelines Directlyas Site-specificObjective Expl 10

Method 2ModifyGenericGuidelines

Expl 11

Method 3Develop Site-specific ObjectiveUsing RiskAssessment Expl 12

DriveSite-specificObjectivewith the CCMEProtocol Expl 13

ConsultOtherJurisdictionalOptions Expl 14

Characterize Site According toAllowable Modifying Parameters

Determine/characterize:1. Groundwater Use2. Human Receptors3. Ecological Receptors4. Presence/Absence of Critical

Habitat5. For Agricultural Land:

Crop/Dairy Products6. For Residential Land: Presence of Backyard

Gardens and VOCs inBasements

7. For Industrial Land: Off-site Movement of Dust Expl 15

CONT'D

Establishment ofthe Final SoilQuality RemediationObjective

Expl 27

Clean up to BackgroundLevels Expl 6

STOP

STOP

No

No

STOP

STOP

No Yes

No

Yes

YesNo

Establishment ofthe Final SoilQuality RemediationObjective

Expl 27

Figure 4. Flowchart for setting site-specific soil quality remediation objectives for contaminated sites.

12



ModifyEquationParameters Expl 16

Ground WaterProtection Expl 17

Direct SoilContact byEcologicalReceptors Expl 19

Direct HumanExposureto Soil Expl 18

Management Checks Expl 20

Human FoodBackyardGarden Expl 21

BackgroundConcentrations Expl 25

Human Consump-tion of Produce,Meat or Milk Expl 22 VOCs In

Basements Expl 23

Off-siteMovement ofDust Expl 24

Adopt ModifiedGuidelines asSite-specificObjective Expl 26

Establishment ofthe FinalSoil QualityRemediationObjective Expl 27

Figure 4. Continued.

13


ndnt,

iskred

d

calculated values to an “acceptable risk” guidelinesdetermine an appropriate remediation objective

• Design and implementation of a risk management pto address site-acceptable risk/remedial objectexceedance

1

to

lanive

The hazard and risk evaluation steps are complex ainvolve receptor characterization, exposure assessmehazard assessment, and risk characterization. A rassessment of considerable complexity may be requibefore sufficient information and understanding will allowthe recommendation of site-specific risk-base

SQGHH

EquationSQGE

Equation

Modification toEquationParameters Ecological

Receptor− appropriate

receptorsrepresented

Expl 19

SQG =Preliminary humanhealth (orenvironmental) soilquality guideline

Management Checks

Groundwater Check− water quality

protection goal− soil organic

carbon content− location of

contamination Expl 17

Direct Human Exposure− child receptor

assumed Expl 18

Human Consumption ofProduce, Meat or Milk Expl 22

VOCs in Basements Expl 23

BackgroundConcentration

Expl 25Modified

Soil QualityRemediation

Objective

Figure 5a. Agricultural land use.

SQGHH

EquationSQGE

Equation

Modification toEquationParameters

EcologicalReceptor− appropriate


Expl 19

SQG =Preliminary humanhealth (orenvironmental) soilquality guideline

Management Checks


protection goal− soil organic carbon

content− location of



assumed Expl 18

Human Food BackyardGarden Expl 21



Expl 25Modified


Objective

Figure 5b. Residential/parkland land use.

SQGHH

EquationSQGE

Equation

Modificationto EquationParameters



Expl 19

SQG =Preliminaryhuman health-based (orenvironmental)soil qualityguideline

Management Checks


protection goal− soil organic

carbon content− location of



assumed Expl 18



Expl 25Modified


Objective

Figure 5c. Commercial land use.

SQGHH

EquationSQGE

Equation

Modificationto EquationParameters



Expl 19

SQG =Preliminaryhuman health-based (orenvironmental)soil qualityguideline

Management Checks


protection goal− soil organic carbon

content− location of



assumed Expl 18



Expl 25Modified


Objective

Off-site Movement ofDust Expl 24

Figure 5d. Industrial land use.

4



e

it

i

ed

c

nd

-

remediation objectives. This approach requires considerable commitment of experienced personnequipment, time, and money.

Risk assessment guidance manuals (CCME 1996provide guidance on the circumstances under which rassessment may be the most appropriate means of sesite-specific objectives. The criteria-based approach believed to provide an effective scientifically baseconservative alternative to a detailed risk assessment.

1.3.5 Selection of Recommended Approaches forModifying Guidelines

The approaches recommended in this book have evolvin part, from a review by MacDonald and Sobolewsk

1

te

en

s

r

s

st

al,

b)sktingis

d

ed,

(1993) of existing approaches for formulating andmodifying generic soil quality guidelines and site-specificremediation objectives. The approaches were considerif they were

• practical, i.e., supported the modification of generiguidelines or the derivation of remediation objectives;

• applicable to the NCSRP, i.e., supported the derivatio

of objectives for remediating contaminated sites anassessing compliance with the remediation plan; or

• scientifically defensible in terms of their ability to

incorporate information on bioavailability, biologicaleffects, complex mixtures of contaminants, and sitespecific conditions.

2.0 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR DERIVING SITE-SPECIFICSOIL QUALITY REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES

y

T

e

,s,lht

The process of developing numerical soil qualiremediation objectives necessitates the appropriate usgeneral and site-specific information. Guiding principlehave been established to direct and focus this process.guiding principles, which follow, are intended to providguidance relevant to specific conditions and decisiocommon to most contaminated sites. It is recognizehowever, that sound professional judgement will playcritical role in the interpretation and application of theguiding principles at the site-specific level.

f

nf

eil

nes

ine

ayific

2.1 Guiding Principles

The following guiding principles for the development onumerical soil quality remediation objectives focontaminated sites in Canada are based on the philosoestablished by CCME (1991a, 1996a):

1. Site-specific soil quality remediation objectiveshould be protective of human health and thenvironment.

2. Site-specific soil quality remediation objectiveshould be protective of the appropriate land use acontaminated site.

ofshe

sd,ae

phy

e

a

3. The land uses to be considered for protection includagricultural, residential/ parkland, commercial, andindustrial.

4. It is the philosophy of the CCME to encourageremediation to the lowest level practicableconsidering the intended land use and other factorsuch as technological limitations. Environmentaquality guidelines are not intended to establismaximum levels of contamination acceptable acontaminated sites. Where the quality of siteconditions is considered superior to the Canadiaenvironmental quality guidelines, degradation oexisting site conditions should be avoided.

5. Generic soil quality guidelines for a substance may badopted directly (Method 1) as the recommended soquality remediation objective for the intended orlikely future use of a remediated contaminated site iCanada. Where it can be demonstrated that the guidelinare not applicable or appropriate to the specific site question using the evaluation guidelines that follow, thguidelines may be modified within the limits prescribedin this guidance manual (Method 2). In somecircumstances, the risk-based approach (Method 3) mbe deemed more appropriate to determine site-specremediation objectives.

5


e

g

9

st at

ed

atente

icenk-nde

yglert

des,ee

n

nt

ionthat or

talings of

6. If generic soil quality guidelines for the designateland use at a contaminated site are not available, proponent should consult the jurisdictional authoritOptions for guidelines development may include, bare not limited to, using risk assessment to develremediation objectives, using the soil protoco(CCME 1996a) to develop remediation objectiveadopting appropriate background levels aremediation objectives, or adopting guidelines froother jurisdictions as remediation objectives.

7. The explanations in this chapter specify threcommended conditions and procedures under whit is appropriate to modify generic guidelines or tdevelop risk-based remediation objectives.

8. The approach used to modify soil quality guidelineshould adhere to the soil protocols and minimum darequirements established in the soil protocol (CCM1996a) and the guidance documents relating to criteria-based (this document) and risk-baseapproaches (CCME 1996b and HC 1995).

9. Generic soil quality guidelines were developed usiinformation on defined exposure scenarios in CanaLimited modification may be allowed to theparameters in three equations, and management chprocedures may or may not be applicable. Apart frothe equation and management check proceduspecified in this guidance manual, the exposuscenario assumptions should not be altered withopermission from the jurisdictional authority whenusing the criteria-based approach. However, theassumptions may be altered if the recommended squality remediation objective was modified using thrisk-based approach.

10. Recommended soil quality remediation objectivmay be modified within limits by omittingtoxicological data on terrestrial organisms (e.gannelids, arthropods) if it can be demonstrated by tproponent that specific toxicity data used to derivthe national generic guidelines are not relevant to tsite under investigation. Under such conditions, thgeneric guidelines may be modified by recalculatinthem based on an adjusted data set derived eliminating toxicological information not relevant tothe site under investigation, provided that

• the minimum data requirements for derivingeneric soil quality guidelines in the soil protoco(CCME 1996a) are met; and

1

dthey.utopl

s,s

m

eicho

staE

thed

ngda.

eckmresreut

seoil

• the administrative rules set out in Explanation 1are followed.

11. Recommended soil quality remediation objective(RSQRO) should normally be protective of the mossensitive water use associated with the groundwateror near the contaminated site.

12. Each decision to accept or reject modification of thRSQROs should be carefully documented anjustified.

13. In general, the Subcommittee recommends thsocioeconomic and technical feasibility factors bconsidered in detail in developing a risk managemestrategy. The framework presented in this guidancmanual provides for consideration of socioeconomand technological factors after an RSQRO has bedeveloped, using either the criteria-based or risbased approach. Guidance on socioeconomic atechnical feasibility factors is, however, outside thscope of the Subcommittee.

14. Continued contamination of the site from readilidentifiable sources (pits, ponds, lagoons, leakinstorage tanks, etc.) should be prevented whidetailed site investigations are conducted to suppothe development of site-specific soil qualityremediation objectives using either the criteria-baseor risk-based approach. Under these circumstancthe generic soil quality guidelines, modified using thavailable information, may be used to guide thremedial action.

e

s

.,

2.2 Explanations

The following explanations are to be used in conjunctiowith Figure 4.

heeheegby

l

Explanation 1: Initial Site Characterization

Information on the nature of the site, including the curreand historical activities, should be reviewed. NationalGuidelines for Decommissioning Industrial Sites (CCME1991b) presents a two-phase site characterizatschedule. Phase I is a site information assessment consists of assessing the historical and current activitiespractices that may have resulted in environmencontamination. Phase II is a reconnaissance testprogram that characterizes the types and concentration

6



i

u

t

e

a

uen

eo

a

e

ndce,er,ns.

n

eed

to

olanh aadded

re.nt

ryalnesds,n

is ofy isdoe

yr

contaminants present in various media on the site. Tinformation will indicate whether more detailed testing required in specific areas and will provide the initiainputs required to develop appropriate site cleanguidelines. The reconnaissance testing program shotarget known and suspected areas of site contaminaidentified in Phase II, as well as areas believed to relatively unaffected by site operations. In cases whcontamination is suspected near site boundaries orknown to have moved off site (such as by aeoliagroundwater, or surface water transport), samples shobe collected to assess off-site effects, potential liabilitieand remediation requirements. The components of Phaand Phase II investigations follow; however, readers directed to CCME (1991b) for further informationProcedures may also be available through tjurisdictional authority.

Phase I: Site Information AssessmentHistorical and Current Setting – topography, geologsoils, terrestrial habitats, vegetation, surface water qualgroundwater and surface water quality, site layowastewater ponds, raw water reservoirs, pipelinunderground tanks, buried service lines, foundatioshipping/receiving areas, storage areas, spill areas, roand rail lines, atmospheric dispersion patterns, landfill aburied pits, and surrounding land uses.

Process Information – product schematics and desichemicals used and their composition, feedstock and product composition, liquid waste management, sowaste management, air pollution control, process changstorage areas, toxic substance use, and on-site laborato

Site Inspections – lagoons, tailings ponds, storage arloading/receiving areas, drainage systems, well locatiuse and condition, wastewater, treatment/disposal, landand land farm areas, surface disturbances, undergroworkings, fuel storage, potential off-site impact, aretransformers, and chemicals/toxic substances.

Historical and Current Operations – development interview questionnaire for key personnel, procechanges, waste management changes, spills and lresponses, regulatory actions, public complaints.

Regulatory Agency Concerns – compliance studies, emissions, soil and water contamination concerns, land compatibility, information from similar sites, public inpurequirements, contaminant assessment and remediacriteria, approved waste treatment/disposal options.

1

hisslp

uldion

Phase II: Reconnaissance Testing ProgramHealth and safety, types of samples, backgrouconditions, analytical procedures, quality assuransampling locations, sampling constraints, groundwatsurface water, soils and sediments, sludges, air emissio

bere

isn,ulds,

se Ire

.he

Explanation 2: Does Contaminant Concentration ExceedAssessment Criteria in Figure 4?

Data gathered on soil quality in the site characterizatioshould now be compared with the CCME (1991a)assessment criteria. If contaminant concentrations at thsite do not exceed the assessment criteria for the identificontaminant, it is likely that no further action is required.If site levels exceed the assessment criteria, proceed Explanation 3.

y,ity,t,s,s,adsnd

gn,by-lides,ry.

as,n,fillunds

ofssaks

airusettion

Explanation 3: Identify Intended Land Use

The generic guidelines developed using the soil protocare intended to protect generic ecological and humreceptors that may be exposed to contaminants througrange of exposure pathways associated with four broland use categories. The land use categories incluagricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, anindustrial and their definitions follow.

Agricultural land use: lands used for growing crops oproducing livestock, and that are agricultural in naturThese also include lands that provide habitat for resideand transitory wildlife and native flora (e.g., transitionzones).

Residential/Parkland land use: lands where the primaactivity is occupation for residency and recreationpurposes. These include lands used as buffer zobetween areas of residence, but do not include wildlansuch as national or provincial parks, other thacampground areas.

Commercial land use: lands where the primary activity related to commercial operations, such as the provisiongoods and services (e.g., shopping mall) and occupancnot for residential or manufacturing purposes. These not include operations where the growing of food is thprimary activity (i.e., agricultural).

Industrial land use: lands where the primary activitinvolves the production, manufacture, construction, oassembly of goods.

7


n

)

ir

b

ny

t to

antis to

nt

ayee

The proponent should consider the historical, existinintended, and potential land use(s) of the site categorizing the site according to these definitions. Lauses on adjacent sites should also be identifieGroundwater uses (current or likely future uses) (suchraw water for drinking, or crop or livestock wateringshould also be identified.

The proponent should also consider land uses surrounding sites. This is important because the migratof contaminants off-site by soil erosion (by wind or wateor by the movement of surface water or groundwater mcontaminate surrounding properties with more susceptiland uses. For example, the off-site migration of soil froa remediated industrial site should not pose aunacceptable risk to a nearby residential site.

o yra

i

eneen

oine

d ttl

a

el

icct

l,s.

oltorsesende

e-ensderandectur

rnlityantionot to

ls.ed

Explanation 4: Does Contaminant ConcentrationExceed Relevant Background Levels inFigure 4?

Information on relevant background concentrations metals and certain organic substances is essentialevaluating the applicability of generic soil qualitguidelines at any specific contaminated site. In genebackground levels of priority substances would bdetermined at a nearby site that is unaffected by speccontaminant sources (however, the site may be affecteddiffuse sources, such as automobile exhaust).

Compare the concentrations of the contaminant of concwith the background levels relevant to the jurisdictioRelevant background levels will be defined by thjurisdiction and may include, but are not limited to, thCCME interim assessment criteria (CCME 1991a) aprovincial background limits.

If relevant site-specific background levels are navailable, the proponent may be able to determbackground levels, subject to approval by thjurisdictional authority. In general, backgrounconcentrations should be determined from an area atsite under investigation, or at a nearby site, sufficienremote from the source of contamination to be safepresumed to have been unaffected by contaminant releAreas considered as representative local background mnot be subject to off-site impacts of the land undconsideration. Similarly, sites containing fill materiawould compare site concentrations to regiona

1

g,indd.as

aton)ayle

m

natural, or indigenous background concentrations, nothe fill concentrations.

If contaminant concentrations do not exceed the relevbackground levels, it is likely that no further action required. Information assembled and decisions takenthis point should, however, be documented.

If contaminant concentrations exceed the relevabackground levels, proceed to Explanation 5.

Note that remediation to background concentrations malso be acceptable to the jurisdictional authority. (SExplanation 6.)

8

ffor

l,efic by

rn.

d

t

Explanation 5: Identify Site-specific ExposurePathways and Receptors

The soil protocol outlines a method to derive generguidelines. Several exposure pathways, including diresoil contact, ingestion of soil and of food grown in soiare used to derive conservative generic guidelineGenerally, guidelines derived using the soil protocconsider the exposure pathways expected for the recepselected for each land use. In some cases, not all of thexposure pathways will be relevant given the current alikely future use of the site. The proponent may ballowed by the jurisdictional authority to make limitedmodifications to the generic guidelines in setting the sitspecific objectives to reflect the known exposurpathways to the site receptors (Method 2) (Explanatio11 and 15 to 26). The proponent should therefore consithe nature of the contaminants, the receptors (human ecological), the medium (soil, water, air), and thexposure pathways (direct contact, direct or indireingestion, inhalation, etc.) that occur or are likely to occon the site.

e

heylyse.ustr

l,

Explanation 6: Cleanup to Background Levels

Ambient background levels of contaminants of concemay be higher than the effects-based generic soil quaguidelines. For instance, background levels in an urbarea may be subject to widespread atmospheric deposiof a contaminant. Generally, the NCSRP does nconsider it appropriate to remediate contaminated sitesa level below relevant ambient background leveTherefore the appropriate background level may be us



ificoil

as the site-specific remediation objective, subject tapproval by the jurisdictional authority.

da

o

r

o

a

easri

ss. Inse

onyntionr

If 1

pdeede

usety.nt

l ahg

eole

Explanation 7: Is Risk Assessment Appropriate?

When site conditions are outside what was considereddeveloping the guidelines using the soil protocol, obeyond the limited modifications outlined under Metho2, the site-specific conditions may lead to recommendation to perform risk assessment as the bafor developing site-specific remediation objectives. Somexamples follow:

• when the site is on, or adjacent to, critical habitats thmay be at risk, or when there is a large degree uncertainty associated with the fate and behaviour the contaminants, such as when the site exhibunusual characteristics (e.g, fractured bedrock, periodflooding, permafrost);

• when receptors of concern (such as sensitive populati

or rare or endangered species) may be believed to havhigh risk potential to the substance(s) of concern;

• when significant data gaps exist related to th

behaviour or toxicity of contaminant mixtures ocontaminant metabolites at the site; or

• when there are either multiple sources of contaminati

or exposure pathways not considered in the soprotocol.

At this point, the site-specific conditions may lead to recommendation to perform risk assessment as the bafor developing site-specific remediation objectives. Thproponent/jurisdictional authority may also continuthrough the process outlined in Figure 4. As additioninformation about the site-specific conditions iconsidered, it may lead to a recommendation to perforisk assessment as the basis for developing the sspecific remediation objectives.

yer

-

llyt

ios

Explanation 8: Do CCME Criteria or GuidelinesExist?

Use the appropriate CCME environmental qualitguidelines for the soil and/or water uses identified undExplanation 2. If no appropriate generic guidelines aavailable, three options may be available to the proponeaccording to the jurisdictional authority. First, sitespecific objectives may be developed using ris

19

o

inr

assessment (Explanation 12). Second, site-specobjectives may be developed using the CCME sprotocol (Explanation 13). Third, other options within thejurisdiction may be available (e.g., adopting guidelinefrom other jurisdictions, setting remediation objectivebased on background levels, etc.) (see Explanation 14)any case, the jurisdictional approval for pursuing theoptions should be sought.

sise

atofofitsic

nse a

e

nil

Explanation 9: Do Contaminant ConcentrationsExceed Land Use RemediationGuidelines?

Data gathered on soil quality in the site characterizatishould now be compared with the CCME soil qualitguidelines for the appropriate site land use. If contaminaconcentrations at the site do not exceed the remediatguideline for the identified contaminant for the particulaland use, it is likely that no further action is required. site levels exceed the remediation guidelines, Method(direct adoption of guidelines) or Method 2 (limitedmodification of the guidelines) may be used to develosite-specific remediation objectives. If Method 2 (limitemodification of generic guidelines) is chosen, thproponent must demonstrate that the conditions outlinin Explanations 15 to 25 apply to the specific site. Thproponent may also elect to use or may be required to Method 3 (risk assessment) by the jurisdictional authoriIn some jurisdictions, approval to perform risk assessmemay be required by the jurisdictional authority.

sise

l

mte-

Explanation 10: Method 1 – Adopt Generic GuidelinesDirectly as Site-specific Objectives

The generic guidelines derived using the soil protocowere developed from exposure scenarios that providegeneral and conservative level of protection to bothuman and ecological receptors (see Table 1). Adoptinthe guidelines directly may be preferred since thexposure scenarios are explicitly stated in the soil protocand are consistent for all contaminants. As well, thgeneric guidelines have been derived to provide a generaconservative level of protection for a variety of activities thaare likely to occur under the specified land use.

rent,

k

Explanation 11: Method 2 – Modify GenericGuidelines

Certain components of the generic exposure scenaroutlined in the soil protocol for the derivation of generic


Ie)

d
guidelines may not be applicable to the specific site. recognition of this, regulatory authorities may allow thlimited modification of the generic guidelines (Method 2If Method 2 is to be used, further site characterizatioaccording to Explanation 15 will likely be required.
t

he

anssis

or

Explanation 12: Method 3 – Develop Site-specificObjectives Using Risk Assessment

Use A Framework for Ecological Risk AssessmenGeneral Guidance (CCME 1996b.) and/or Human HealthRisk Assessment for Contaminated Sites (HC 1995), orother appropriate guidance required by the jurisdictionauthority.

n

ol

Explanation 13: Derive Site-Specific Objectives usingthe Soil Protocol (CCME 1996a)

Site-specific objectives may be developed for thappropriate land use exposure scenario for contaminafor which no effects-based guidelines exist, providing thminimal acceptable data requirements outlined in the sprotocol (CCME 1996a) are followed. Jurisdictionaapproval for pursuing this option should be sought.

v

3isia

e

Explanation 14: Consult Other Jurisdictional Options

Other options within the jurisdiction may be available (e.gadopting guidelines from other jurisdictions, objectivebased on background levels, etc.). Jurisdictional approfor pursuing this option should be sought.

ey

dyan

ly

elric

ificrin

Explanation 15: Characterize Site According toAllowable Modifying Parameters

To apply Method 2 more information concerning thallowable modifying parameters will likely be necessarData relating to the following factors should be collecteand reviewed:

• the presence of and current or likely uses ofgroundwater;

• the age groups of people who frequent the site;• the family and species of biota that frequent the site;• the presence/absence of critical or sensitive habitat;• for agricultural sites: crop, dairy, or meat production

for human consumption;• for residential/parkland sites: the presence or likely

presence of backyard gardens;

20

n

.

• for industrial sites: the surrounding land uses; an• the presence of basements.

n

:

al

ets

eil

Explanation 16: Modifications to EquationParameters

The Subcommittee has identified three cases within tsoil protocol under which limited modification of thegeneric guidelines may be permitted through modification of the equation parameters (see Explanatio17, 18, and 19). These cases were identified on the baof the relative ease of determining a site-specific value fthe parameter.

Note: While a recalculation may alter the SQGHH (soilquality guidelines considering human health effects), itmust be compared with all other allowablemodifications for the SQGHH and with the SQGE (soilquality guidelines considering environmental effects)and any of their allowable modifications (Figures 5and 6). The lowest value will then be selected as themodified soil quality remediation objective.

.,sal

.d

Explanation 17: Groundwater Protection

Groundwater uses were identified under Explanationsand 15. If groundwater protection is not an issue, thcheck may be removed and the generic criterrecalculated. Note that jurisdictional authorization isrequired if explicit protection of groundwater is not anobjective of the site remediation. Note also that thisoption may forego any future potential uses ofgroundwater. An example where such a decision may bappropriate is when the groundwater supply is alreacontaminated from other sources to an extent where it cno longer sustain a beneficial use.

Groundwater Model

1. This check in the soil protocol deals with theprotection of groundwater from soil contaminationwhen developing generic soil quality guidelines.

2. The CCME recognizes that this model is not the onmethod for calculating a soil guideline that isprotective of groundwater; however, a simple modwas deemed appropriate for use in developing geneguidelines.

3. Some allowable changes, based on site-specinformation (e.g., organic carbon content ogroundwater use protection goal) may be made withthe check under Method 2.



a

e

,

e

y

h

theypHal.nngglef

ther

icrt.l.ge

.

rcil

theee

e

ithnicce.ed),te.e

oilheon

4. This model does not address other groundwater isssuch as transport of contaminants.

5. The proponent should check with the jurisdictionauthority whether other models concerningroundwater are also appropriate or required.

Modify Based on Groundwater Use

If groundwater is to be protected, some guidelinmodification may still be possible. First, the soil protoco(under the Human Health-based Process % Evaluation ofDerived Guidelines Relative to Guidelines for CanadiaDrinking Water Quality [CCME 1991a, Section 5])recognizes that soil containing nonpolar organsubstances in contact with groundwater may result groundwater contamination. If this water is likely to bextracted, it should be of a quality that will not exceewater quality guidelines for that water use. For examplethe groundwater is to be used as raw water for drinkinthe residual levels of contaminants in remediated sshould not be allowed to create soil pore watconcentrations in excess of the CCME raw water fdrinking guideline (CCREM 1987, Chapter 1). The soprotocol considers this in the following equilibriumpartitioning equation:

Ya = DF [Cwa (Kd + �m)]

where

Ya = total contaminant concentration in soil inequilibrium with groundwater at the drinking wateguideline concentration

DF = generic dilution factorCwa = the critical concentration in groundwater, set equ

to the relevant drinking water guidelineKd = distribution coefficient�m = mass moisture content

The default value in the soil protocol for Cwa is the CCMEraw water for drinking guideline. Following permission bthe jurisdictional authority, the proponent may substituan appropriate water quality guideline according to tcurrent or likely future groundwater use. For example, the groundwater will be used only to water livestock, thCCME livestock watering water quality guideline(CCREM 1987, Chapter 4) for the contaminant oconcern, may be used for Cwa. (See note in Explanation16.)

2

ues

lg

sl

n

icin

ed ifg,

oilr

oril

r

al

teeife

f

Modify Based on Soil Organic Carbon Content

The characteristics of soils at contaminated sites have potential to significantly alter the fate and effects of mancontaminants. Ranges of organic carbon content and encountered in Canadian soil are reported in Alder et (1994). While pH, clay type, clay content, and catioexchange capacity of the soil are known to be stroinfluences, in some cases it was not possible to set a sinrange that would deal accurately with all types ocontaminants. Site managers are strongly urged to readsections in Alder et al. (1994) appropriate focontaminants of concern at the site.

The presence of atypical but not extreme levels of organcarbon content could affect the mobility and/obioavailability of contaminants and provide sufficiengrounds for a limited modification of the generic criteriaFollowing the review of Canadian soils by Alder et a(1994), the Subcommittee nominated an applicable ranof soil organic carbon content (foc), from 0.1 to 17%, forwhich the soil quality criteria would be widely applicableThe default value for foc used in the soil protocol(Evaluation of Derived Criteria Relative to Guidelines foCanadian Drinking Water Quality) was 0.1% soil organicarbon. However, if it can be demonstrated that soorganic carbon at the site is between 0.1 and 17%, actual site value may be substituted in the equation. (Snote in Explanation 16.)

If the soil organic carbon content at the site is outside thapplicable range of 0.1 to 17% and if mobile organiccontaminants are present, a risk assessment may beappropriate.

Modify Based on Location of Contamination

In general, soil organic carbon content decreases wdepth. Consequently the greatest attenuation by orgamatter is expected to occur at or near the soil surfaWhen the contamination occurs at depth (e.g., buriwaste, leaking underground container, or old landfill siteit is expected that there will be a dramatically differendegree of attenuation than would occur at the surfacTherefore, when contamination occurs at depth, thgroundwater protection equations should use the sorganic carbon content that occurs at the point of tcontamination and beneath (not the surface organic carbcontent). (See note in Explanation 16.)

1


i

t

ilarlistaye

theficoo

Other Modifications

Actual site values for other factors may differ from thother default values. However, changing other equatparameters is not recommended by the Subcommitunless a risk assessment is done. The Subcommirecognizes that more sophisticated groundwater modwhich use site-specific data are available. However, duethe complexity of the model parameters, thSubcommittee suggests that if the proponent wishes to usesuch models, jurisdictional consent would be required.

norit

yt

l

eteustta a

sive

beot

Explanation 18: Direct Human Exposure to Soil

Within the soil protocol, human receptors were considerfor all land uses. On agricultural, residential, and parklasites, children were considered to be the human receptOn industrial and commercial sites, adults weconsidered to be the human receptors. In some sspecific circumstances, these may not be the relevanlikely human receptors. Therefore, some limitemodification of the guidelines may be allowed bsubstituting the body weights and the soil ingestion raof the relevant or likely human receptors at the sit(Reference body weight and soil intake for humans afound in the soil protocol). Note that this modification wirequire justification to and approval by the jurisdictionaauthority. (See note in Explanation 16.)

bt

u

s

o

i

ine

oftee

tsyal

ted

ality

eed

alityily

Explanation 19: Direct Soil Contact by EcologicalReceptors

Information on the receptors that are (or that would expected to be) present at a remediated site is imporfor evaluating the applicability of generic guidelines. Thgeneric guidelines are likely to apply at most sites becaof the data acceptability requirements. The soil protocuses toxicological data on organisms that are native toraised in Canada, and the preferred calculation u“weight of evidence” of all acceptable toxicologicastudies that report no-observed-effect concentrati(NOEC) and lowest-observed-effect concentratio(LOEC) data.

Remediation objectives, however, may be required at sthat are characterized by the presence of atypical recepor only a limited diversity of species. Under the rulepresented here limited modification of the generguidelines may be permitted. First, appropriate sampliand ecological classification information must be obtain

2

eonteeteeels toe

eddrs.

ete- ord

ese.rell

eanteseol ores

ln

n

testorsscgd

to assemble a list of the families of terrestrial organismsthat occur at the site as well as those that occur at a simbut uncontaminated reference site. The reference site is important, since chronic contamination at a site mhave limited the families of biota that could survive thexposure to contamination.

The data set used to derive the generic guidelines for contaminant of concern may be modified on a site-specilevel as detailed in the following administrative rules (1 t9) if the families of biota are not found to be relevant teither the site under investigation or the reference site.

Decisions regarding the modification of the data sthrough the elimination of irrelevant data must bsupported by detailed rationale. The revised data set mbe examined to determine whether the minimum darequirements of the soil protocol are satisfied, to derivemodified environmental soil quality guideline (SQGE).(See note in Explanation 16.)

Limited Modification Based on Ecological Receptor(Recalculation Procedure)

The modification of the generic soil quality guidelineusing an adjusted data set must follow these administratrules:

1. The onus for demonstrating that species should excluded from the data set lies with the proponent, nthe jurisdictional authority.

2. Toxicological data for species representative species known or likely to be present at the si(reflective of the intended land use) cannot bexcluded from the national data set.

3. For plants, if a member of a family of terrestrial planoccurs or could occur at the site, toxicity data for anplant species of the same family present in the nationdata set must be retained in the site-specific adjusdata set.

4. For invertebrates, if a member of a family of terrestriinvertebrates occurs or could occur at the site, toxicdata for any species of invertebrate from the samfamily present in the national data set must be retainin the site-specific adjusted data set.

5. For vertebrates, if a member of a family of terrestrivertebrates occurs or could occur at the site, toxicdata for any species of vertebrate from the same fam

2



e

h

i

ette

re

o

ve

re

eble

s oros.rmeite.

iclysg

esssorite-al

sealeckree,eck

eilk

present in the national data set must be retained in site-specific adjusted data set.

6. Not withstanding points 1 through 5, if data for speciwithin a family are demonstrated to be irrelevant to thsite under investigation, they may be deleted toxicological data are present for one or moradditional representative species from the same famin the national data set.

7. Where the data for a species are demonstrated toirrelevant to the site under investigation but are thonly data representative of a family present opotentially present at the site under investigation, tdata cannot be deleted from the national data set.

8. The subset of data used under this recalculatprocedure must continue to fulfil the CCME’sminimum data requirements. If the results of threcalculation procedure cannot meet the soil protocominimum data requirements, data for nonresideand/or irrelevant species included in the nationdatabase cannot be eliminated.

9. The modified soil quality remediation objectivederived through the recalculation procedure must evaluated by the jurisdictional authority to ensure thit provides the level of protection consistent with thobjectives of the soil protocol.

Implicit to the recalculation procedure approach is threquirement that the site-specific toxicological data sused in the recalculation procedure continue to satisfy minimum requirements of the soil protocol. Thinformation in the data set used to derive the genecriteria has been intensively screened and assessed foacceptability. For this reason the use of toxicological daderived for the site or the use of supplemental literatudata not previously contained in the database used generic guidelines can be considered for the site question only as a component of the risk assessmapproach and not for recalculation of the generguidelines. (See note in Explanation 16.)

e

heeray

Explanation 20: Management Checks

Certain management checks in the soil protocol may reconsidered under specified land uses as describedExplanations 20 to 25 and in Figure 6.

2

the

seifeily

beere

on

el’sntal

beate

e

Human Health Process

The guiding principles within the human health proceduof the soil protocol state that

• guidelines should result in no appreciable risk thumans interacting with a remediated site

• guidelines are based on defined representatisituations

• guidelines are derived from a consideration of exposuthrough all relevant pathways

• a critical human receptor is identified for each land us• guidelines should be reasonable, workable, and usea

The generic soil quality guidelines were derived aconservative benchmarks intended to protect, maintain,enhance soil quality for given land uses and scenariThe generic guidelines consider many likely activities foa given land use. The Subcommittee recognizes that soof these scenarios may not occur on the remediated sTherefore, under Method 2, limited modification of theguidelines may be possible if any of the four generscenarios outlined in Explanations 21 to 24 will not appat the remediated site. Note that the limited modificationallowed under Explanations 21 to 24 consist of removinthe check from the derivation. Other parameter valuwithin the equations for the human health-based proceare not to be altered under Method 2. Other models other parameter values may be nominated under a sspecific risk assessment, if permitted by the jurisdictionauthority. (See note in Explanation 16.)

he

ricr itstareforinentic

be in

Explanation 21: Human Food %% Backyard Garden

The generic guidelines for residential/parkland land uwill not normally be protective of human exposure to locproduce consumption. Therefore, this management chis applicable to residential/parkland land uses only wheconsumption of backyard garden food is, or is likely to bsignificant. In such cases, the backyard garden food chmay be added to the derivation of the SQGHH. This checkin the soil protocol assumes that 10% of producconsumed will be grown on site and that no meat or mwill be produced on site (for a residential setting). (Senote in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the equations for tbackyard garden check are not to be altered undMethod 2. Other models or other parameter values m

3


Management Checks for Agricultural Land Use Management Checks for Residential/Parkland Use


BackgroundConcentrations

Expl 25

VOCs inBasements

Expl 23

Human Consump-tion of Produce,

Meat or MilkExpl 22



Expl 25

Human FoodBackyardGarden

Expl 21

VOCs inBasements

Expl 23


FinalSoil QualityRemediationObjective Expl 27



Management Checks for Commercial Land Use Management Checks for Industrial Land Use



Expl 25

VOCs inBasements

Expl 23



Expl 25

VOCs inBasements

Expl 23





Off siteMovement ofDust Expl 24

Figure 6. Procedure for management checks for four land uses.

24



,theed.

be nominated under a site-specific risk assessmentpermitted by the jurisdictional authority.

o

aoo

elka

o

e

i

n-ther

risk

altheesnse,al.ck

in

ff-er beed

rnlityantiond

alch

beent

Explanation 22: Human Consumption of Produce,Meat, or Milk Produced on Site

This is applicable to the agricultural land use remediatiguidelines only, and consists of three components. Tgeneric scenario assumes that 50% of the produce meat, and 100% of the milk consumed is grown produced on site. The generic agricultural remediatiguidelines will be protective of exposure from/to locaproduce consumption. Note that if any one of the threegrown on site, the original assumptions should be uphfor that food item. If any of the produce, meat, or miwill be not grown on the remediated site, this check mbe removed for that food item. The modified guidelinewill be based on an assumption that 100% of the produmeat, and milk will be grown or produced off site anpurchased. The equations to change depend on which fitems will not be grown on site and may include

Human daily intake of contaminants from produce:Ph (percent of produce homegrown) = 0%Pl, (percent of produce purchased) = 100%

Human daily intake of contaminants from meat:Mh = (percent of meat home produced) = 0%Mc = (percent of meat purchased) = 100%

Human daily intake of contaminants from milk:Mkh = (percent of milk home produced) = 0%Mkc = (percent of milk purchased) = 100%

Ip, Ib, and Im (CCME 1996a, Appendix B, Section 4.1Equation 12) will then reflect the fact that either producor meat, or milk will not be produced on the remediatsite. (See note in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the equations for the humconsumption of produce, meat, or milk check are not toaltered under Method 2. Other models or other paramevalues may be nominated under a site-specific rassessment, if permitted by the jurisdictional authority.

t

beicrictbe

Explanation 23: Volatile Organics in Basements

In the derivation of SQGHH for volatile organiccontaminants, an uncertainty factor will be applied address the possible leaking of the volatile organ

2

if

nhend

contaminant through basements (HC 1995). If nobasements are present or likely to be present at remediated site, the uncertainty factor may be remov(See note in Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the volatile-organics-ibasement check are not to be altered. Equations for the oparameter values may be nominated under a site-specificassessment if permitted by the jurisdictional authority.

rnl isld

ysce,dod

Explanation 24: Off-site Movement of Dust

This is applicable to guidelines intended for industriland use only. The exposure scenario used for deriving industrial land use soil quality guidelines accommodatthe potential movement of remediated soil from aindustrial property to a more sensitive adjacent land usuch as commercial, residential/parkland, or agriculturHowever, if the adjacent land use is industrial, this chemay not be required. In such cases, the SQGHH need notbe compared with Ci (the concentration of contaminant ineroded soil) (CCME 1996a, Appendix E). (See note Explanation 16.)

Other parameter values within the equations for the osite movement of dust are not to be altered undMethod 2. Other models or other parameter values maynominated under a site-specific risk assessment if allowby the jurisdictional authority.

,e,d

anbetersk

oic

Explanation 25: Modification due to BackgroundConcentrations

Ambient background levels of contaminants of concemay be higher than the effects-based generic soil quaguidelines. For instance, background levels in an urbarea may be subject to widespread atmospheric deposiof a contaminant. In terms of relevant backgrounconcentrations, the CCME suggests that proponents andjurisdictional authorities make use of local or regiondata on background concentrations, but if suinformation is not available, explicit information onbackground concentrations at or near the site may considered. Remediation to a level below relevant ambibackground levels is generally not considered to appropriate. Therefore, if Method 1 (adopting genercriteria directly) is under consideration and if the genesoil quality guideline is below the relevant ambienbackground level, the relevant background level may used as the site-specific remediation objective.

5


ie

b

ise

If Method 2 (limited modification according toExplanations 17 to 25) has been used and if the modifsoil quality guideline is below the relevant ambienbackground level, that relevant background level may used as site-specific remediation objective.

fc

ss

s

iesys,hebe

lic

Explanation 26: Adopt Modified Guideline as Site-specific Objective

The modified criterion may be used as the site-speciremediation objective. However, note that this guidanmanual has dealt with issues of a scientific nature as threlate to the assumptions and calculations of effects-baguidelines under the exposure scenarios defined in the protocol. The Subcommittee acknowledges thimportance of considering socioeconomic and technicfactors in setting site-specific remediation objective

26

rt

s

v

dte

However, guidance on the consideration of these factorsbeyond the scope of the scientific mandate of thSubcommittee.

iceeyedoileal.

Explanation 27: Establishment of the Final SoilQuality Remediation Objective

Further consideration of technical feasibility,socioeconomic factors, and risk management strategmay be appropriate in establishing a final soil qualitremediation objective. The Subcommittee recommendhowever, that all management decisions made during tdevelopment of the site management strategy should fully documented and justified. In this way, thetransparency of the process will be maintained and pubconfidence in the resulting decisions will be enhanced.

er

iln

nl

of

e

lf.she

3.0 HYPOTHETIC

SITE 1

• An orphan site is submitted for NCSRP funding.• The site is classified as Class 1 (action required) und

the National Classification System.• The range of levels of arsenic (65 to 100 mg/kg d

soil) and cadmium (0.8–15 mg/kg dry soil) on the siexceed the interim assessment criteria in soil (5 a0.5 ppm, respectively).

• The site is agricultural, used for a mix of activitiesincluding wheat, feed corn, and beef cattle productioGroundwater is used as a drinking water and livestowatering supply.

• The levels of arsenic and cadmium exceed the effecbased remediation guidelines for agricultural land u(hypothetically 14 mg arsenic/kg dry soil and 5 mcadmium/kg dry soil).*

Decision

Directly adopt the effects-based soil quality remediatioguidelines for arsenic and cadmium for agricultural lanuse as the recommended site-specific remediatiobjectives.

*Note: Hypothetical values are used to illustrate the process. Howeit is intended that the CCME recommended effects-based soil quaguidelines be used in applying this process to an actual site.

AL EXAMPLES

er

yend

,n.ck

ts-e

g

ndon

er,lity

SITE 2

• An orphan site is submitted for NCSRP funding.• The site is classified as Class 1 (action required) und

the National Classification System.• The site is residential, located in an area with high so

organic carbon levels (that is, 5% organic carbocontent in the soil).

• Site levels of pentachlorophenol (PCP) exceed interimassessment criteria and soil quality remediatioguidelines for residential/parkland use, and regionabackground levels. Studies indicate that the source contamination is located at the soil surface.

• The site characterization indicated that water from thsite is used as a drinking water supply.

• The effects-based guidelines for pentachlorophenotake into account the potential for residual levels oPCP to contribute to soil pore water levels of PCPHowever, the high organic carbon level (5%) indicatethat greater attenuation can be expected throughout tarea than was assumed in the soil protocol.

Decision

The site values of soil organic carbon content, foc, (5%),replace the default value of 0.1% in:

Ya = DF [Cwa (Kd + �m)]

where



h

ngen

il

r

l

at

ofly

lish

d

lth

dof.

.dort

l

nderds,,

.

ta-

Ya = total contaminant concentration in soil inequilibrium with pore water at the drinking waterguideline concentration

DF = dilution factorCwa = concentration in the aqueous phase, set at t

drinking water guidelineKd = distribution coefficient, such that Kd = foc × Koc

foc = organic carbon contentKoc = sorption coefficient for soil organic carbon, predicted

form correlation with the water solubility, or n-octanol/water partition coefficient, Kow

�m = mass moisture content

Since Kd is much larger than �m, the moisture content canbe ignored. With all factors except foc staying constant, theresulting change in groundwater is to increase the humhealth soil quality guidelines for groundwater protectio50 times, hypothetically from 0.4 mg PCP/kg to 20 mPCP/kg dry soil (Figure 7). The environmental guidelinis hypothetically 1 mg PCP/kg dry soil. Therefore, whethe modified human health soil quality guideline (20 mgPCP/kg dry soil) is compared with the environmental soquality guideline (1 mg PCP/kg dry soil), the lower of the

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

SQGHH = 90 mgPCP/kgSQCow = 0.4 mg/kg

SQGE = 1 mgPCP/kg

EcologicalReceptor

− no change

BackgroundConcentration− no change

Modified SQRO =1 mg PCP/kg dry soil(lowest of SQGE andSQCHH modified)

VOCs In Basements− no change

Human Food BackyardGarden− no applicable

Direct Human Exposure− not change

Groundwater Check− modified = 20 mg

PCP/kg dry soil

Figure 7. Hypothetical example using Method 2: Modification ofgeneric soil quality guideline within limits to establishrecommended soil quality remediation objective.

27

e

an

il

two (1 mg PCP/kg dry soil), is the recommended soquality remediation objective.

SITE 3

• An orphan site is submitted for NCSRP funding.• The site is classified as Class 1 (action required) unde

the National Classification System.• The site is industrial with agricultural uses surrounding

the property.• Site is an old storage facility with an unknown chemica

mixture in the waste stream.• The soils contain at least toluene and ethylene glycol

levels that exceed the interim assessment criteria andthe remediation guidelines for industrial land uses, aswell as a mixture of other contaminants.

• Downstream is a critical habitat for migrating ducks. Decision

The combination of the presence of a complex mixture contaminants that were close by and that would likeaffect the critical habitat downstream led to therecommendation to perform a risk assessment to estabthe site-specific remediation objective.

References

Alder, V.J., L.J. Evans, and G.A. Spiers. 1994. Evaluation andistribution of master variables affecting solubility of contaminants inCanadian soils. Prepared for the Environment Canada, Eco-HeaBranch, Ottawa. 81 pp.

ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials). 1990. Standarguide for collection, storage, characterization, and manipulation sediments for toxicological testing. ASTM Designation: E 1391-9015 pp.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1991aInterim Canadian environmental quality criteria for contaminatesites. The National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, RepNo. CCME EPC-CS34. Winnipeg.

———. 1991b. National guidelines for decommissioning industriasites. Report No. CCME-TS-WM-TRE013E. 98 pp.

———. 1991c. Appendix IX—A protocol for the derivation of waterquality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (April 1993). In:Canadian water quality guidelines, Canadian Council of Resource aEnvironment Ministers. 1987. Prepared by the Task Force on WatQuality Guidelines. [Updated and reprinted with minor revisions aneditorial changes in Canadian environmental quality guidelineChapter 4, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999Winnipeg.]

———. 1992. National Classification System for Contaminated SitesReport CCME-EPC-CS39E. Winnipeg. 54 pp.

———. 1993a. Guidance manual on sampling, analysis, and damanagement for contaminated sites. Vol. I, Main report (CCME-EPCNCS-62E). Vol. II, Analytical method summaries (CCME-EPC-NCS-66E). CCME, Winnipeg.


y

i

h

l

ice

e

a

n

s

s

theci.temh,

foroil

malth

inon

resn

Ed

tts

ntion,

difetioneinan

———. 1993b. Appendix XV—Protocols for deriving water qualitguidelines for the protection of agricultural water uses (Octob1993). In: Canadian water quality guidelines, Canadian CouncilResource and Environment Ministers. 1987. Prepared by the TForce on Water Quality Guidelines. [Updated and reprinted wminor revisions and editorial changes in Canadian environmenquality guidelines, Chapter 4, Canadian Council of Ministers of tEnvironment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

———. 1994. Subsurface assessment handbook for contaminated sReport No. CCME-EPC-NCSRP-48E. Winnipeg. 293 pp.

———. 1995. Protocol for the derivation of Canadian sediment quaguidelines for the protection of aquatic life. CCME EPC-98EPrepared by Environment Canada, Guidelines Division, TechnSecretariat of the CCME Task Group on Water Quality GuidelinOttawa. [Reprinted in Canadian environmental quality guidelineChapter 6, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 199Winnipeg.]

———. 1996a. A protocol for the derivation of environmental anhuman health soil quality guidelines. Prepared by the CCMSubcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for ContaminatSites in Canada. CCME-EPC-101E. En 108-4/8-1996E. ISBN 0-6624344-7. [A summary of the protocol appears in Canadienvironmental quality guidelines, Chapter 7, Canadian Council Ministers of the Environment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

———. 1996b. A framework for ecological risk assessment: Geneguidance. Prepared by the CCME Subcommittee on EnvironmeQuality Criteria for Contaminated Sites in Canada.

CCREM (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Minister1987. Canadian water quality guidelines. Prepared by the Task Foon Water Quality Guidelines.

EC (Environment Canada). 1994a. A framework for ecological riassessment at contaminated sites in Canada: Review recommendations. Sci. Ser. Rep. No. 199. Prepared for EnvironmCanada, Ecosystem Conservation Directorate, Evaluation aInterpretation Branch, Ottawa. 108 pp.

2

erofaskthtale

ites.

ity.als,s,9,

dEd2-nof

raltal

).rce

kandentnd

———. 1994b. A review of whole organism bioassays for assessing quality of soil, freshwater sediment and freshwater in Canada. SSer. Rep. No. 198. Prepared for Environment Canada, EcosysConservation Directorate, Evaluation and Interpretation BrancOttawa. 118 pp.

HC (Health Canada). 1995. Human health risk assessment contaminated sites. Prepared for the CCME Subcommittee on SQuality Criteria for Contaminated Sites and Health Canada.

———. 1996. Human Health risk assessment of chemicals frocontaminated sites. Vol. 1, Risk assessment guidance manual. HeCanada, Environmental Health Directorate, Ottawa. In prep.

HWC (Health and Welfare Canada). 1989. Derivation of maximumacceptable concentrations and aesthetic objectives for chemicalsdrinking water. Prepared by the Federal–Provincial Subcommittee Drinking Water of the Federal–Provincial Advisory Committee onEnvironmental and Occupational Health.

MacDonald, D.D., and A. Sobolewski. 1993. Recommended procedufor developing site-specific environmental quality remediatioobjectives for contaminated sites in Canada. Prepared for CCMSubcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for ContaminateSites. 194 pp.

Mudroch, A., and S.D. MacKnight (eds.). 1991. Bottom sedimensampling. In: CRC handbook of techniques for aquatic sedimensampling. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. 210 pp.

O Connor Associates. 1995. Movement of volatile organics ibasements. Prepared for Health Canada, Hazardous Waste SecOttawa.

Walker, S., and D.D. MacDonald. 1993. Protocol for the derivation anuse of Canadian tissue residue guidelines for the protection of wildlin aquatic ecosystems. Prepared for Environment Canada, Evaluaand Interpretation Branch, Guidelines Division, Ottawa. Unpub. [Thprotocol, published in 1997 and released in 1998, is reprinted Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 8, CanadiCouncil of Ministers of the Environment, 1999. Winnipeg.].

8



rical

Appendix:Checklist for the National Classification System for Contaminated Sites

(CCME 1992)

USER S GUIDE REVIEWED

MINIMUM DATA REQUIREMENTS MET

Description of site location Type of contaminants or materials likely to be present at site (and/or description of histo

activities) Approximate size of site and quantity of contaminants Approximate depth to water table Geological map or survey information (soil, overburden, and bedrock information) Annual rainfall data (can be inferred from rainfall map of Canada) Surface cover information Proximity to surface water Topographic information Flood potential of site Proximity to drinking water supply Uses of adjacent water resources Land use information (on-site and surrounding)

FACILITY/SITE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED

SITE CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET COMPLETED

REFERENCES ATTACHED/CITED

EVALUATION FORM COMPLETED

Detailed Form Short Form

SCORE SHEET COMPLETED

SITE CLASSIFICATION

Class: 1 2 3 N I

Score: � _________________ Total Estimated Score Site Identification:

29


30

Reference listing:

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1996. Guidance manual for developing site-specific soil quality remediationobjectives for contaminated sites in Canada. National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Canadian Council of Ministers of theEnvironment, Winnipeg. [Reprinted in Canadian environmental quality guidelines, Chapter 7, Canadian Council of Ministers of theEnvironment, 1999, Winnipeg.]

For further scientific information, contact:

Environment CanadaGuidelines and Standards Division351 St. Joseph Blvd.Hull, QC K1A 0H3Phone: (819) 953-1550Facsimile: (819) 953-0461E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ec.gc.ca

© Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 1999Excerpt from Publication No. 1299; ISBN 1-896997-34-1

For additional copies, contact:

CCME Documentsc/o Manitoba Statutory Publications200 Vaughan St.Winnipeg, MB R3C 1T5Phone: (204) 945-4664Facsimile: (204) 945-7172E-mail: [email protected]

Aussi disponible en français.

Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality ... · This final report has evolved...

Documents

Transcript of Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality ... · This final report has evolved...